The type of situation was new, compelling argument. In my first response to you I stated: More succinctly, there are times when one should change their mind mu

The type of situation was new, compelling argument. In my first response to you I stated: More succinctly, there are times when one should change their mind much more rapidly than gradually. You responded by repeating your original points. This gives the impression that you don’t think this is true. That is, that you don’t believe there are circumstances where someone ought to change their mind much more rapidly than gradually. I still don’t understand the purpose of your posts. They did not pertain the situation I was talking about. Side discussion. Putting words into my mouth is not a good response. The statements we make have logical conclusions and implications. So while one may not say the words, for instance, I want to kill you. one can conclude this sentiment if other words/actions imply it. You may attempt to deny me the right to put words into your mouth, so to speak, but as a person well trained in mathematics you won’t be successful. A collection of statements is rarely without valid, logical implications. I may not correctly make deductions on meaning/intent but the retort ought to be: That’s not a valid deduction for these reasons…